Team Fortress Wiki talk:Technical requests

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Jeff

Jeff should know this page exists now. -- Pilk _(talk) 21:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The preceding discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

EmbedVideo

I'm under the impression that we're already using this extension, but also, I believe Jeff said he won't upgrade to the latest version because it has security issues or something. We should look into this and find a better Extension. This one is quite annoying. -- Smashman... _{(t • s)} 23:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The preceding discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Update to MediaWiki version 1.16.0

Could we update to MediaWiki version 1.16.0, please? It contains a number of fixes and also, the new Vector skin which should help with usability. Thanks. -- Smashman... _{(t • s)} 10:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Valve are most likely keeping to legacy releases at the moment (1.15.*). Vector would be cool, but I assume they have security and compatibility issues to keep in mind. seb26 [talk] 11:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would they do that? 1.15.4 was the latest version when this wiki was released and if Wikipedia are using it, then it won't have security concerns. Believe me, Wikipedia are more likely to be worried about security, and if they're good with it, then it'll be more than secure enough for our requirements. -- Smashman... _{(t • s)} 11:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what I think, but then again, we aren't running the server. There may be other reasons involved. seb26 [talk] 21:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the patch-notes, the only changes we could really benefit from are a couple of new interface strings (such as ones that appear below talk page editnotices) and the Vector skin. This needs to be weighed up with the possible issues that could arise with the style sheets or other things, and the fact it would delay the other requests for real things like extensions because upgrading is not a simple process. -- Pilk _(talk) 11:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to chime in here and also request that Valve is pressured into upgrading the wiki to the 1.16 branch, as I believe given the number of edits these days, that getting the "grouping" functionality of edits to the same page on the Recent Changes list, and in the Watchlists is almost essential at this stage. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 01:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The preceding discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Move?

Why, oh, why did you do that? I sent an email to Jeff YESTERDAY to take a look at these. Put them Goddamn back.  – Smashman _(talk) 10:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Smashman seb doesn't need your attitude, seriously. If you want it back you should do it. Discussion on the usefulness of a particular request should be on the talk page itself though. Jeff shouldn't have to go through the discussion to determine what we came to the conclusion of. At the moment this upgrade is contentious anyway. It shouldn't be up til we agree on it. -- Pilk _(talk) 10:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I can't do it, hence my asking to do it. I didn't wish it to be a discussion, it was meant to be a request, but seb decided to have a discussion. I do not see a reason why we wouldn't wish to upgrade. And the RandomPage thing was your request that Wind fulfilled and it merely needs an upload.  – Smashman _(talk) 11:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I want 1.16 too, but it's unlikely to happen at all. It's clear that Valve are sticking to legacy releases, and that they have their own reasons for it, and are unlikely to listen to our opinions on it, regardless of how big a site Wikipedia is or whatever. And Wind's random page thing says it needs an updated .php file or something, so that seems even more unlikely to be done. seb26 [talk] 11:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Making it a discussion was important. You do not see a reason why they wouldn't want to upgrade, but seb does and I do. Adding that extra touch of "goddamn" isn't fair or called for either. -- Pilk _(talk) 11:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well we might as well request on this page. Valve don't seem to be using legacy releases at all. The version we have here was the most current version at the time of our set up, so I don't see why they wouldn't update. Jeff was also telling me about the next update having the Vector skin, and this meaning that the current Valve skin will need fixing. This definately seems like he had updating in mind. Could we merely request it and see Jeff's opinion? Thanks.  – Smashman _(talk) 11:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's stuff like this that you shouldn't keep to yourself. -- Pilk _(talk) 11:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Come on IRC / Steam more man, we could have avoided this whole thing lol seb26 [talk] 11:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm for update :D I like updates -- Nightbox _{(t s)} 11:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Believe me seb, I would if I could. Mobile IRC program anyone?  – Smashman _(talk) 11:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

On it. seb26 [talk] 11:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The preceding discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Moved requests off the page

Why did you remove requests of the page? I maybe understand why rejected requests were moved, but the accepted requests were here so Jeff/anyone can view them. Did Jeff acknowledge that he had these on his own todo list? -- Pilk _(talk) 20:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt Jeff would want to see them again. As he's already reviewed them. If he wants, he can click the tick at the top.  – Smashman _(talk) 21:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

But spread over seven pages? What's the point? You moved them because you think Jeff doesn't want to see them again? -- Pilk _(talk) 21:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if he's going take a look at the page again, why would he want to see requests that he's already reviewed?  – Smashman _(talk) 21:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

But seven pages? Seriously? How is that better? -- Pilk _(talk) 02:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The preceding discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Extra file formats

SVG images won't happen. For starters, they have to be rendered into PNG by a separate plugin. It's not something the software can do by itself. When you consider the difficulty involved in getting a smaller extension added, and you couple that with the fact that there isn't anything special SVG images can do (that scaling down a high res PNG can't do), then it just won't happen. A video format is also out of the question too. Hosting video files means additional unnecessary bandwidth for Valve: why the bother when you can just use YouTube? As for .cfg files, I don't particularly understand. Not too long ago we deleted all of the class scripting pages, and one of the justifications was that "we shouldn't be competing with modding sites like fpsbanana". If we were to bring them back, then hosting .cfg files will only complicate maintenance further, as you must download the file to see what's in it (and none of the scripts we could host wouldn't be very long anyway).

As for the other file formats (mp3, ogg & compression formats), they seem like reasonable suggestions, I'll re-add them to the page. seb26 [talk] 20:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

SVG should be supported for scaling. SiPlus 07:31, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

The preceding discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Auto-Translate?

Hi, there! Should a auto-translate (for all languages) be helpful? (Then with a added "help with translating" tag.) [] /shadow/sShaD'OhsS 11:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

By 'auto-translate', I hope you don't mean Google Translator. This was discussed at length somewhere else, but put simply, there isn't any way that a computer can translate into another language better than a native speaker can. seb26 [talk] 11:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

i agree with seb here i was myself going to do the auto translate (google translate) as a tester i translated somthing into swahili and back to eglish again and didnt get the right results --Iaindude 10:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The preceding discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not sure if this belongs here, but it's worth pointing out.

So I'm not sure if this is my broswer's (Google Chrome) problem. When I zoom in on the page, the header is white, as normal. Although, when I zoom out, it glitches and turns to a dark grey. Any ideas? - MLGM 14:45, 17 May 2012 (PDT)

The preceding discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sharp Dresser Weapons Demonstration is marked as Private on YouTube.

• When you try to watch the demonstration, it comes up saying "This video is private." You need to fix that on the YouTube account.

The preceding discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Special:RandomPage

Is there any way that we can make Special:RandomPage not redirect to subpages? Obviously the primary language of the wiki is English, and there's really no point presenting the majority of people with a Russian page who then might click again to get a German page. -- Pilk _(talk) 09:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

WindPower has created an extension for use. It's quite brilliant! He's made it so that if you're on an English page, then random page returns only English pages, if you on a localized page then it will only return pages of the same language. Pretty fancy! -- Smashman... _{(t • s)} 10:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Source to WindPower's extenstion.  – Smashman _(talk) 20:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The extension requires the SpecialRandomGetRandomTitle hook that was added in 1.16.0. I have successfully installed it on the Alien Swarm Wiki, which also runs on 1.15.4, by simply overwriting 1.15.4's SpecialRandompage.php with the version from 1.16.0, and it seems to work fine. So either an upgrade to 1.16.0 or simply overwriting this file would work. Thanks~ — Wind 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Given the age of this request I think WindPower should make the decision here; I tested the extension, but it only stuck to English pages because I couldn't enable the /wiki/$1 url-shortening on my test wiki; if it can be tweaked to apply on index.php?title=$1 as well as /wiki/$1 then I'm okay with it. -RJ 20:58, 13 May 2013 (PDT)

Semantic MediaWiki

The SMW framework would be extremely useful for this wiki. There is a lot of data on the wiki that can be collated or filtered as lists, making a lot of manual categorization unnecessary. —Moussekateer·talk 04:34, 12 May 2013 (PDT)

 Support though SMW confuses my head. -RJ 20:58, 13 May 2013 (PDT)

Enabling search autocomplete

This would be immensely useful and has the side effect of making a huge amount of redirects unnecessary. —Moussekateer·talk 04:34, 12 May 2013 (PDT)

 Comment MediaWiki 1.20+ contains search autocomplete by default, and that page says $wgEnableMWSuggest was broken pre 1.20 which makes me wary of it; I think we can skip this and wait until we upgrade. -RJ 20:58, 13 May 2013 (PDT)

SearchLog extension

If search autocomplete is not viable for whatever reason the SearchLog extension would be a useful tool. It generates a table of searches and their frequency. —Moussekateer·talk 04:34, 12 May 2013 (PDT)

 Oppose Sounds pretty slick, but I'm opposed as its beta and only lists support up to 1.17. -RJ 20:58, 13 May 2013 (PDT)

Update the Autoconfirmed user group

Remove the captcha for users with 10 (or whatever) or more edits in the mainspace. —Moussekateer·talk 04:34, 12 May 2013 (PDT)

 Support but we should wait for more input before changing. -RJ 20:58, 13 May 2013 (PDT)

Update MediaWiki to 1.20.5

Critical bug fixes everywhere. —Moussekateer·talk 04:34, 12 May 2013 (PDT)

Anti-spam stuff

I think one easy change would be installing AbuseFilter; You can write regex filters to block based on a user's age, number of links in an edit, etc.

A second extension that might be useful is SpamBlacklist. WMF has a huge list of sites globally blocked on their sites, and it tends to be pretty useful.

Nuke lets admins mass-delete pages, making cleanup a bit easier.

SimpleAntiSpam just adds a form in the signup page that users don't see, but blocks registration if a bot were to add text to it. [4]

One change that doesn't require an extension is to add something like this bit of code in LocalSettings.php: [snip] $wgAutoConfirmAge = 86400*5; //Set autoconfirmed age to 5 days... $wgAutoConfirmCount = 5; //...and 5 edits $wgGroupPermissions['user']['createpage'] = false; //Don't allow new users to create pages $wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['createpage'] = true; //Allow autoconfirmed users create pages $wgGroupPermissions['user']['upload'] = false; //Don't allow new users to upload $wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['upload'] = true; //Allow autoconfirmed users upload files [/snip]

I'm not a MediaWiki expert... But I've run quite a few wikis that have been spammed a lot worse than this, and mitigated it to the point where we got almost no spam anymore. Pilif12p 15:49, 13 May 2013 (PDT)

Only way this will happen is if Valve actually does it. But knowing valve. They will take forever. So Good luck with this. Ashes 16:47, 13 May 2013 (PDT)

We have server access now Ashes; right now we're figuring out our workflow before we implement anything, but things should clean up soon. -RJ 16:54, 13 May 2013 (PDT)

Splitting each proposition in to its own discussion section: -RJ 20:58, 13 May 2013 (PDT)

AbuseFilters

 Oppose We have AbuseFilters on the Dota 2 Wiki, but it's a lot of effort to set up, and (with the Dota 2 WIki set up) there are often false positives which can easily go unnoticed unless the Abuse logs are constantly being reviewed; I'm opposed to abuse filters right now, but if other efforts to counter spam aren't successful I'd reconsider this opinion. -RJ 20:58, 13 May 2013 (PDT)

Wikipedia has a lot of their filters public, and in production. You can just copy the regex from there and set the same options, then you shouldn't have too many false positives. This is a pretty good example. It's not like you have to enable any filters if you do install it, though. Pilif12p 14:54, 14 May 2013 (PDT)

SpamBlacklist

 Support -RJ 20:58, 13 May 2013 (PDT)

Nuke

 Support Worth having in case of any mass-edit attack / vandalism, though spambots we face right now just do a single edit and disappear, so it's not necessary for spam handling. -RJ 20:58, 13 May 2013 (PDT)

SimpleAntiSpam

 Support Sounds simple, I think it's worth trying. -RJ 20:58, 13 May 2013 (PDT)

Permissions changes

 Comment Worth discussing. It seems we did have AutoConfirmAge and AutoConfirmCount set to what you proposed, but they were later reduced to lower values for some reason. I think these permissions may be too aggressive right now, and the spambots we're facing are waiting to be autoconfirmed before they hit anyway - so these changes might not have any impact. -RJ 20:58, 13 May 2013 (PDT)

Turns out I'm wrong with the above statement, spambots are editing with only "user" permissions, so it's certainly worth discussing if we should limit users aggressively until they're autoconfirmed. -RJ 10:57, 14 May 2013 (PDT)

Edit filter

 Comment Recommended by Bsadowski1�, it seems pretty powerful with what we can do with it. —Moussekateer·talk 18:34, 31 May 2013 (PDT)